I think people are putting gay marriage somewhere where it doesn't belong to be honest. Thats not a government issue at all. The government needs to be blind to both race and sex. But I agree though, saying you support gay marriage loses you votes. I neither support nor am against gay marriage. I simply don't care what someone else wants to do with their life unless it affects me. 

Whats funny though is that if you say anything other than "eww" or "thats nasty" people look at you like your crazy. Its like high school on a national level. 

And a flat tax rate is fair, no doubt, but then it becomes a moral issue more than a government issue. If you are making $600,000 a year I agree that you shouldn't really be forced to pay more. But if you are making a surplus of money and you can help your fellow Americans, wouldn't you want to? On top of that, we can see that this "ill handle me, you handle you" mentality is flawed in our economy. If the bottom falls out then everything falls apart. Rich Americans would not be rich if it weren't for the American people. They didn't actually perform the work, but they did provide and support the system in which they thrived. Its a moral obligation to help the country in a time of need, and it will help maintain the system that allowed rich people to reach that level in the first place.

Our economy has a "I'll handle me and you handle you" mentality because that is how capitalism works. If you improve and make decisions that benefit yourself and I improve and make decisions that benefit myself, then everyone is better off. But to say that Americans have that mentality is wrong. Americans are quite generous and are always willing to help out their fellow man. Americans give more than double any other nation. as % of GDP to private charities.

Is it fair for people who can barely afford to pay for their food and rent to have to pay as much of a percentage of their income as taxes when there are people out there who were born into an affluent family, were able to receive an education, and are a professional making over 150k a year on their own?

Fairness to one person is not fairness to another. My family makes over 150k, and I do not think that is fair. To quote the Bible, which many Republicans conveniently ignore when it doesn't suit their interests, "The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do." Galatians 2:10.

I have just never understood how the purportedly Christian party can have such an unsympathetic attitude towards the poor? It just doesn't make sense to me, unless you assume they are hypocrites.

I am not talking about you Kasz, as I have no idea what your religious orientation is.

And I am not claiming that religion should have any place in politics, I just find it very contradictory that the Republican Party claims to have the high ground on religious issues (or at least, religious issues as it defines them).

Bold 1) They wouldn't be.  When you account for costs of living the poor would still be paying less.  What would be taxed would be income above "cost of living" which is a higher percent when you make more money.

People who are born into an affluent family get money because the people who earned that money want them to.  This is fair because those who earned that money have every right to decide what they do with it.  Whether it be give it to their family, or spend millions and millions of it away.

Bold 2) Christian Charity isn't about being forced to give away money.  It's about choosing to give away money to the poor.  It's a difference of opinion.  Small government Republicans(and Democrats) don't believe "SCREW THE POOR!"

They believe the Government is a wasteful, unorginized bueracracy that can't help the poor because all it does when it sees a problem is throw more money in it.  In otherwords when they have a cup with a hole in it.  There idea of keeping it full is to keep pooring water.  Not fix the hole.

They believe contributions to charities that work on smaller scale, and just for the goals of curing these problems work better.

Less money taking out for government programs that have questionable abilties means more money for social programs that work.

Would less money be contributed then the government takes?  Almost definitly... however the thought is the effectiveness of the programs would be better as money will be donated to the programs that work, and the programs that don't won't get money... unlike the government where everyone is kept around or reshuffled because they don't want to fire people.

If you're willing to admit that less money goes to the donations than would if the government got involved, then I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

But I have never really believed that many Republicans or Democrats are as generous with their money in their personal lives as they would like to let on.  I am all for people doing volunteer work, and I have done a lot of it myself (was the president of a large volunteer organization in undergrad), but I know how many problems are out there that remain unaddressed.

And there are some things which are simply too large in scale for anybody except the government to take on.  Giving health insurance to children in poor families is one example, or a foodstamp program.

I have more faith in the government to help out the poor than I do for private individuals to help the poor, as bad as that sounds.  I just know when it comes down to it, most people never do volunteer work or even contribute that much to charities.  But I do have a great deal of respect for corporations who go out of their way to do so.  Hell, even Wal-Mart does a lot for how soulless of a corporation they are.

I think it is spurious to say that conservatives do not care for the poor simply because they do not believe the government is the best tool to help others. Conservatives help others out. Not only do conservatives give more money to private charity, they also donate more blood and volunteer more time than liberals. I am neither conservative nor liberal, but I do give credit to others when credit is due. They care the same as liberals. They simply demonstrate it in a different way.

    ORLY?    ;)

Care to back that up with something tangible?  Because I will damn sure not take your word for it.

1) Foodbanks.  Foodbanks are more efficient then Foodstamps because you know for a fact that money goes for food... and it covers inflation and other problems foodstamps have. 

Foodbanks infact is the private sector answer to the great inadequecies of the foodstamp program.  For example Foodbanks can provide more nutriotious food, as people tend to donate healthier foods then what people buy with Foodstamps. 

Often times people with Foodstamps tend to use them to buy there food, instead of increase how much money they spend on their food to get healthy alternatives. 

Instead of getting for example, healthy fruits vegetables and meats... plenty of people get the same ramen and other stuff they would otherwise get and entertainment stuff.

2) I agree with you on national healthcare.  Though that i see more as a "good for the country" initative then any sort of charity.  Government run healthcare means Buisnesses don't have to offer Healthcare.  Which means American goods don't have a hidden "Healthcare Tariff" that other products don't have... and healthy workers are good for the country.

However i wouldn't be surprised if something like a Comprehensive Free Clinic system could work.  Giving doctors and others tax breaks for doing charity work.  That's the way government should be pushing charity work.  By offering tax breaks and other incentives, not by taking money by legislative force.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Of course i haven't seen any peer reviews of the book yet.  Just the first thing a google search brings up.

Apparent extracts

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.